Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T08:03:03.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Decline of the Piece-Rate System in California Canning: Technological Innovation, Labor Management, and Union Pressure, 1890–1947

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Martin Brown  and
Peter Philips
Martin Brown
Affiliation:
Martin Brown is assistant professor of economics atHoward University.
Peter Philips
Affiliation:
Peter Philips is assistant professor of economies at theUniversity of Utah.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the following article, Professors Brown and Philips examine two questions concerning wage payment systems. First, has the prevalence of incentive systems been affected by the rise of the modern corporate enterprise? Second, what has been the effect of institutionalized unionism on the prevalence of incentive systems? Brown and Philips explore these issues through a historical case study of the decline of the piece-rate system in the California canning industry, from which they conclude that in the context of Chandlerian industrial development piece-rate systems tend to give way to more complex incentive and hourly wage-rate systems. They explore this hypothesis further through an examination of historical data on wage payment systems for American manufacturing as a whole.

Type
Articles
Information
Business History Review , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , Winter 1986 , pp. 564 - 601
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hobsbawm, Eric J., “Custom, Wages and Work Load in Ninrtcenth-Cenntury Industry,” in Workers in the Industrial Revolution, ed. Stearns, Peter N. and Walkowitz, Daniel J. (New Brunswick, N.J., 1974), 232–54Google Scholar; Nelson, Daniel, Managers and Workers: Origins of the New Factory System in the United States, 1880–1920 (Madison, Wis., 1975), chaps. 3 and 5Google Scholar; Clawson, Dan, Bureaucracy and the Labor Process (New York, 1980), 168–82Google Scholar; Marx, Karl, Capital, 3 vols. ([1867]; New York, 1977), 1; 697Google Scholar.

2 Hobsbawm, “Custom, Wages and Work Load,” 244–47; Mangum, Garth L., “Are Wage Incentives Becoming Obsolete?” Industrial Relations 2 (Oct. 1961): 73Google Scholar; Lebergott, Stanley, “The American Labor Force,” in Davis, Lance E. et al. ,,American Economic Growth: An Economist's History of the United States (New York, 1972), 201Google Scholar.

3 Casio, Wayne F., Managing Human Resources (New York, 1986), 424Google Scholar.

4 Mangum, “Wage Incentives,” 73; Nadworny, Milton J.. Scientific Management and the Unions, 1900–1932 (Cambridge, Mass., 1955). 25, 51Google Scholar; National Industrial Conference Board, Financial Incentives (New York, 1935), 34–35Google Scholar; National Industrial Conference Board, Wage Incentive Practices (New York, 1945), 1Google Scholar.

5 McKersie, Robert B., Miller, Carrol F. Jr,and Quarterman, William E., “Some Indicators of Incentive Plan Prevalence,” Monthly Labor Review 87 (March 1964): 271–76Google Scholar.

6 Marx, , Capital, 1: 697Google Scholar. The notion that firms structure wages by taking account of internal as well as external competition has recently been applied in a study of wage-setting policies of British firms. See Nolan, Peter and Brown, William, “Competition and Workplace Wage Determination,” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 45 (Aug. 1983): 268–88Google Scholar.

7 McCulloch, John R., A Treatise on the Circumstances Which Determine the Rate of Wages and the Condition of the Labouring Classes ([1853]; New York, 1967), 70, 71Google Scholar.

8 Yellen, Janet L., “Efficiency Wage Models of Unemployment,” American Economic Review 74 (May 1984): 200–205Google Scholar; Pencavel, John H., “Work Effort, On-the-Job Screening, and Alternative Methods of Remuneration,” in Research in Labor Economics, ed. Ehrenberg, R. (Greenwich, Conn., 1972), 1:255–58.Google Scholar Peneavel's use “screening” is somewhat of a misnomer. Screening usually refers to the process by which employers make hiring decisions about workers with certain individual or group characteristics on the basis of prior, usually imperfect, informnation. Peneavel uses it to refer to a process of the discovering the proper value of each worker's performance on the job—screening as a sorting device.

9 Montgomery, David, Workers Control in America: Studies in the History of Work, Technology, and Labor Struggles (New York, 1979), 37–40Google Scholar.

10 Brown, Martin and Philips, Peter, “Craft Labor and Mechanization in Nineteenth-Century American Canning,” Journal of Economic History 46 (Sept. 1986): 743–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jens Christiansen and Peter Philips, “What Do Factories Do? The Transition from Outwork to Factory Production in the Lynn Boot and Shoe Industry, 1830 to 1880,” Working Paper, Department of Economies, University of Utah.

11 Doeringer, Peter and Piore, Michael, Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis (Lexington, Mass., 1971)Google Scholar; Brown, Martin and Philips, Peter, “The Historical Origin of Job Ladders in the U.S. Canning Industry and Their Effects on the Gender Division of Labour,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 10 (June 1986): 129–45Google Scholar.

12 Mathewson, Stanley B., Restrictions of Output among Unorganized Workers (Carbondale, Ill., 1969), 125–26Google Scholar.

13 McCabe, David A., The Standard Rate in American Trade Unions (New York, 1912), 114Google Scholar; Nadworny, Scientific Management, 53; Conference Board, Wage Incentive Practices, 6–11.

14 Mangum, “Wage Incentives,” 74–75.

15 California Bureau of Labor Statistics, Second Biennial Report: 1885–86 (Sacramento, Calif., 1887), 27–28Google Scholar; California Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Conditions in the Canning Industry (Sacramento, Calif., 1913), 28Google Scholar.

16 San Francisco Examiner. 4 Sept. 1881: California Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Conditions, 31–33.

17 U.S. Commissioner of Labor, Thirteenth Annual Report: 1898 (Washington, D.C., 1899), 2 1055–81Google Scholar.

18 California Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Conditions. 8–12, 24.

19 U.S. Immigration Commission, Immigrants in Industry, 41 vols. (Washington, D.C., 1911), 25: 251Google Scholar.

20 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Twelfth Census of the U.S.: 1900, Occupations at the Twelfth Census (Washington, D.C., 1904)Google Scholar, table 43; U.S. Immigration Commission, Immigrants in Industry, 25:262Google Scholar.

21 San Francisco Examiner, 4 Sept. 1881, 1Google Scholar.

22 California Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Conditions. 29–30.

23 U.S. Immigration Commission, Immigrants in Industry. 25:257–60Google Scholar.

24 San Francisco Examiner, 4 Sept. 1881, 1Google Scholar; California Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Conditions. 26.

25 Anthony, Donald, “Labor Conditions in the Canning Industry of the Santa Clara Valley” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1928), 50Google Scholar.

26 Canning Trade 22 (19 Jan. 1900): 7Google Scholar; Brown and Philips, “Craft Labor and Mechanization.”

27 U.S. Commissioner of Labor, Eeleventh Annual Report (Washington, DC., 1898), tables 291, 300, 301Google Scholar; Overland Monthly 18 (Oct. 1891): 367Google Scholar.

28 Sprague Canning Machine Company, General Catalogue of Canning Machinery and General Supplies (Chicago, 1904), 208Google Scholar; Berger and Carter Company, Canning Machinery and Supplies (San Francisco, Calif., 1917), 52Google Scholar.

29 Brown, Martin and Philips, Peter, “The Evolution of Lahor Market Structure: The California Canning Industry,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 38 (April 1985): 396CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Earl R. Anderson, son of W. C. Anderson, founder of Anderson-Barngrover, interview with authors, 11 Nov. 1977, San Jose, Calif.

30 Fred Ludorff, Food Machinery Corporation engineer and inventor of the beehive and rotary peach pitters, interview with authors, 17 July 1978, Sunnyvale, Calif.; Braznell, William, “California's Finest,” The History of Del Monte Corporation and the Del Monte Brand (San Francisco, Calif., 1982), 66Google Scholar; Elizabeth Nicholas, labor organizer and cannery worker in the 1920s and 1930s, interview with authors, 7 July 1978, San Jose, Calif.

31 Ludorff, interview with authors. 17 July 1978; Elizabeth Nicholas, “Working in the California Canneries,” Harvest Quarterly, Sept.–Dec. 1976, 12–25.

32 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Tenth Census of the United States: 1880 (Washington, D.C., 1883), 2: 93, 436Google Scholar; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Fourteenth Census of the United States: 1920 (Washington, D.C., 1923), 4: 60, 523Google Scholar; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States: 1910 (Washington, D.C., 1914), 4: 440Google Scholar; Fifteenth Census of the United States: 19:10 (Washington, D.C., 1933), 5: 204, 213Google Scholar; Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940 (Washington, D.C., 1943), 3: 254Google Scholar.

33 Brown and Philips, “California Canning,” 395–96; California Industrial Welfare Commission, The Regulation of the Fruit and Vegetable Canning Industry of California (Sacramento, Calif., 1917), 209Google Scholar; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wage Structure: Canning, 1948 (Washington, D.C., 1949), 24Google Scholar; Brown, Martin, “A Historical Economic Analysis of the Wage Structure of the California Fruit and Vegetable Canning Industry” (Ph.D. diss., University ol California, 1981), 237–41Google Scholar.

34 U.S. Commissioner of Labor, Thirteenth Annual Report, 1055–81; California National Youth Administration, An Occupational Study of the Fruit and Vegetable Industry in California (Sacramento, Calif., 1938), 21Google Scholar.

35 Mike Elorduy. cannery worker and secretary-treasurer ot the California Council of Cannery Unions, interview with authors, 19 Dec. 1978, Sacramento, Calif.

36 Berger and Carter Company, Canning Machinery, 52.

37 Elizabeth Nicholas, interview with authors, 7 July 1978.

38 Ibid., 4–8, 18–29.

39 Brown, “Historical Analysis,” 377.

40 Howell, Marjorie, “California Cannery Unions” (M.A. thesis, Stanford University, 1946), 24Google Scholar; Chaffee, Porter M., “A History of the Cannery and Agricultural Workers Industrial Union,” Works Progress Administration, Federal Writers Project (Bancroft Library, Berkeley, Calif., 1938), 18Google Scholar.

41 California Processors, Inc., and California State Council of Cannery Unions, Collective Bargaining Agreement (Sacramento, Calif., 1937)Google Scholar.

42 Ibid., 1937 and 1938.

43 Ibid., 1940 and 1949.

44 California Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Conditions, 30.

45 “Efficiency of the Help as a Major Factor in Costs,” Western Canner and Packer, June 1938, 19–20.

46 Randall Tewley, “A Study of Personnel Problems in the Cannery,” Western Canner and Packer, Jan. 1938, 39–41.

47 Mike Elorduy, interview with authors, 19 Dec. 1978.

48 Brown, “Historical Analysis,” 11.

49 California Processors, Inc., Collective Bargaining Agreement, 1941.

50 Mike Elorduy, interview with authors, 19 Dec. 1978; U.S. Women's Bureau, Application of Labor Legislation to the Fruit and Vegetable Canning and Preserving Industries (Washington, D.C., 1940), 103Google Scholar; Calfornia Industrial Welfare Commission, Biennial Report, 1940–1942 (San Francisco, Calif., 1942), 1–2Google Scholar.

51 California Processors, Inc., Collective Bargaining Agreement, 1943.

52 California CIO Council, Economic Material on California Cannery Industry (San Francisco, Calif., 1946)Google Scholar, I–C–5—I–C–9.

53 Howell, “California Cannen Unions,” 49–59; Cameron, Kenneth, “Association Bargaining in the California Canning Industry” (M. A. thesis, University of California, 1949), 132–66Google Scholar.

54 California Canning Industry Automation-Mechanization Commission, Report on In-Plant Studies (Sacramento, Calif., 1963)Google Scholar.

55 Steiber, Jack, Steel Industry Wage Structure, (Cambridge. Mass., 1959)Google Scholar; Schatz, Ronald, The Electrical Workers: A History of Labor at General Electric and Westinghouse, 1923–1960 (Urbana, Ill., 1983)Google Scholar.

56 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977)Google Scholar.

57 Conference Board, Financial Incentives, 16–22; National Industrial Conference Board, Some Problems in Wage Incentive Administration (New York, 1940), 8–11Google Scholar.

58 Sherman, Joseph M., “Incentive Pay in American Industry,” Monthly Labor Review 45 (Nov. 1947): 535–38Google Scholar; Earl L. Lewis, “Extent of Incentive Pay in Manufacturing” ibid. 83 (May 1960): 460–63; John Howell Cox, “Time and Incentive Pay Practices in Urban Areas,” ibid. 94 (Dec. 1971): 53–55.